If You Haven't Taken To Chrome Yet, Try The New Beta
in [Freeware]
|
From: Craig on 6 May 2010 21:13 On 05/06/2010 04:20 PM, Bear Bottoms wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?=<boxcars(a)gmx.net> wrote in > news:20100506173832.62d70667(a)bellgrove.remarqs.net: > >> Bottoms introduced incognito mode to the discussion as a red >> herring. >> >> <http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php> >> > Yup...hook line and sinker. Thanks for the reminder, Q. Forgot that BB gleefully spreads misinformation sometimes. -- -Craig
From: »Q« on 6 May 2010 21:24 In <news:Xns9D70C90C7A808bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)69.16.185.250>, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars(a)gmx.net> wrote in > news:20100506190135.7f788f07(a)bellgrove.remarqs.net: > > > In <news:Xns9D70BBC42C781bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)69.16.185.250>, > > Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > > > >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars(a)gmx.net> wrote in > >> news:20100506173832.62d70667(a)bellgrove.remarqs.net: > >> > >> > http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php > >> > >> Chrome creates a unique ID through which a user can be > >> theoretically identified. > > > > That's a very good point, Bottoms. And, of course, "can be > > theoretically identified" is the same thing as "can be identified by > > Google if they want to". > > Didn't you see how easy it was to reset that? No, did you post something about how you've crippled it? When it comes to deciding whether or not to use spyware, I don't much care how easy it is to cripple the spying. > > Together with Google's onerous stances on privacy, > > Can you cite one instance where Google has harmed anyone > intentionally? That's an irrelevant question unless you consider distributing spyware to be harming people intentionally. Do you think distributing spyware constitutes harming people intentionally? > > that's reason enough to avoid Chrome, IMO. Or you can install > > Chrome and then jump through hoops to cripple its spyware aspects, > > hoping you don't overlook any of them. Or you can just use another > > browser, such as Iron. > > > > <http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php> > > Not a big deal at all...very easy to do. You mean it's very easy to track down and cripple all of the Chrome spyware? Or you mean it's not a big deal the Google produces spyware in the first place? > Iron: well we'll see when the new beta of Chrome comes out of beta, > how long it takes for Iron to catch up. If that's something you care about, why wait for Iron to come out of beta before seeing? You can get Iron 5.0.380 beta now to see how it's going.
From: Spamblk on 6 May 2010 21:46 H-Man <Spam(a)bites.fs> wrote in news:4be324db$0$65828$892e0abb(a)auth.newsreader.octanews.com: > Unless I'm missing something, incognito mode in Chrome and Private > mode in FF do nothing for your privacy on the WAN side, it simply > makes sure you don't leave any paw prints on the system you're on. > Google's privacy policy is still cause for concern AFAIC. Correct. An incognito mode is about the entries in the cache (cookies, site preferences, browsing history). Site logs can still be kept by your ISP or by the Gateway of the machine you are using. And as regards Chrome, I don't buy the argument that this unique ID is along the lines of cookies. This fallacy can be shown when you consider why cookies werent used instead of the unique ID by Chrome. Maybe its because you can delete cookies at will? As pointed out by other posts, Google Chrome has this attitude to privacy that maybe could cause concern. I briefly tried (not Chrome but Iron) and IMHO there is no comparison with FF. I have just applied an "about:config" change to FF to allow for dragging the borders of frames. I'm not sure that can be done in Chrome. I prefer the layout of FF, and its addons are a must have.
From: »Q« on 6 May 2010 22:39
In <news:Xns9D70D135EFC8bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)69.16.185.250>, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > Well, I see you have gone into your trolling mode. Every bit of what I posted about Google's Chrome spyware was serious. You can read it at <http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C20100506202451.64cc5aec%40bellgrove.remarqs.net%3E> in case you'd like to rethink your strange and vague pro-spyware stance. > Discussion over. ITYM mindless shilling over -- I didn't notice you trying to discuss anything. Anyway, thanks for stopping whatever it was you thought you were doing. |